RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2786, 22 January 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before A. C. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Civil Cases. Telfer v. Murdoch.—L9 19s 6d, for work done in jewellery. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. Davis v. Hunter.—L2 8s sd, bah.uce of account for meat supplied. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs.

Millar and Hall v. Steel.—Claim of L 5, amount of an I OU. Judgment for amount claimed, with costs. Millarv. Gray.—L2ll2s fid, being balance of commission, and expense of measuring disputed work done by contract at the Nuggetts Lighthouse. Mr Brent for plaintiff; Mr Harris for defendant. Defendant offered to pay into Court L2 10s 3d, and as to the balance pleaded not indebted. —Mr Millar. C.E., said Mr Gray came to him, and asked him the extra charges for measuring up extra work of a disputed contract. Witness replied that his usual charge was 5 per cent, upon the buildiug erected, together with travelling expenses. Gray explained the difficulty he was in through Mr Balfour’s death with respect to the Government and the Nuggets Lighthouse, and witness said under the circumstances he would do it for 24 per cent, and three guineas a day. Mr Gray considered it a reasonable charge, and urged him at once to go on with the work, and witness went to the Nuggetts on the 4th of March, on the understanding that the payment should be promptly made. The account for extras due to the contractor on account of the Nuggetts Lighthouse witness measured as amounting to L 1315, which at 24 per cent, was L 32 17s. He had received a portion of the amount, at which time witness reminded Mr Gray he promised to pay the whole promptly, whereupon he replied he was short of money, and would pay in a few days. Mr Pearce said he had been a contractor for thirty years, and had the contract for erecting the Nuggetts Lighthouse. He thought 5 per gent, was a small commission for work of the kind done by Mr Millar, and he considered in such out-of-the-way places as the Nuggets travelling expenses should have been allowed. Mr B. Hotson, C.E., thought Mr Millar’s charge was a fair one.- -For the defence it was hold that the plaintiff was only entitled to 24 per cent, on the suiu actually received, and not on the estimate of extras made by him, and that there was a distinct agreement to that effect. The defendant said that there was no agreement made as to the per centage chargeable by Mr Millar. His offer was to charge three guineas a day and expenses. He (Gray) paid L 23 and five pounds travelling expenses. He might have told Pearce he had agreed to give Millar 24 per cent, on amount received fromthe Government, but not on his estimate for extras. Millar agreed to those terms. He had received L 450 from the Government, and L 97 more was due. F. Haworth was called. He had once been with Mr Gray to Mr Millar’s house respecting the account. Gray objected to the charges, as he would never get the amount of extras from the Government. Millar said he would take the amount of extras that was got from the Government. His Worship considered, from Haworth’s evidence, there was no help for it but to give judgment for the amount paid into Court. Judgment accordingly.

Fincher v. Schlotel and Boyd—£ls 7s Id, balance of account, Mr M'Keay for the plaintiff; Mr E. Cook for the defence. The plaintiff is a storekeeper, and on authority of the defendant Schlotel, supplied two men working for the firm with goods, the amount of which he promised to see paid, at the same time requesting they should not he put down to his private account. Authority was given to trust them to the amount of LlO or Lls. On applying for payment no objection was at first made to the liability, the defendant Schlotel paid L 5 on account. For the defence, it was objected that certain goods were charged to the firm instead of to Mr Schlotel’s private account. G. Elliott, assistant to the plaintiff, heard a conversation between plaintiff and Schlotel, in which the lattef was told the men had obtained goods to the ainodut of 143, When he replied it did not matter to two or three pounds. For the defendants. Mr Cook objected that the goods were not such as ought to have been supplied to workmen, and that the plaintiff should have had orders upon the firm signed by them. The defendant admitted giving authority to Fincher to charge the goods to the firm, on condition that when the men applied for goods they must gfve ah pi-fler by the firm, so that they would be justified in stopping the money out of their earnings.

His Worship considered that Schlotel really became responsible for the value of the goods supplied to the men. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs. [Left sitting.]